Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Ga.: Decisionmakers’ lack of knowledge of employee’s episodic back pain cripples constructive discharge claim, (Mar 24, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The record also showed that while she was still in her initial probationary period, she was habitually tardy, made substantive errors that included potential HIPAA violations, and had conflict with her coworkers.

A former customer management representative who, after suffering acute back pain which landed her at the ER and caused her to miss several days of work, claimed she was forced to resign during a meeting with the HR director and her department director, failed to survive summary judgment on her ADA disability-discrimination claim. A federal district court in Georgia held that while a jury could find that her back pain with sciatica qualified as an episodic impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, she could not establish that the decisionmakers knew about her disability since she only communicated about the back-pain episode with her direct supervisor. She also could not show causation since the decision to end her employment was already underway due to her tardiness, performance errors, and interpersonal conflicts (Rollins v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-61 (LAG) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2026)).

Tardiness. On June 5, 2023, the healthcare system hired the employee, and she began her 120-day orientation/probationary period. Though employees in the care management department generally worked from 8 AM to 4:30 PM, the record showed that on 36 occasions she clocked in after 8 AM, which violated the attendance policy.

Goes to ER with back pain. On the morning of July 24, the employee texted her supervisor that she was going to the ER because she had hurt her back and then let her know she would miss work since she was receiving two shots and couldn’t drive. She also received a doctor’s note provided a diagnosis of “acute low back pain with sciatica” and a return-to-work date of July 27. On July 25, she clarified with her supervisor that she would return on July 28 since the supervisor previously approved her request to take off work on June 27 to take her mother to the doctor.

No disability-related requests. On June 26, she had a follow-up medical appointment with a different doctor who listed her return-to-work date as July 31. It was not clear whether she advised her supervisor or anyone else about the updated return to work date or forwarded the note to anyone, and she never spoke to HR about her medical situation or requested any type of accommodation.

Interpersonal and performance issues. After she returned to work on July 31, a coworker began questioning the correctness of her work, which she perceived as being harassing. After a critical email from the coworker, the employee texted her supervisor and stated that she would be contacting HR if the harassment didn’t stop.

On August 9, the coworker emailed the director of the care management department (CM director) to inform her that the employee had faxed patient information to the wrong insurance company. That same day, the coworker emailed the employee asking her to review a patient account where the employee faxed information to the wrong insurer, copying their superiors.

Seeks transfer. On August 10, the employee set up an appointment to meet with the HR director on August 14 to discuss concerns about her job position. She cancelled right before the meeting, however, stating she would contact her at a later date to reschedule. The next day, she sent an email to the HR director seeking information on other employment options. That same day, the recruitment team advised the HR director that she had applied for a job in another department.

Termination decision. Meanwhile, leadership in the CM department began considering terminating her. After she canceled the August 14th meeting, the HR director emailed the department leadership and asked whether there were grounds for termination based on her attendance and potential HIPAA violations. On August 15, the employee called out because “she wasn’t feeling well,” at which point the HR director determined it was time to “move forward with releasing during the introductory period due to the continuation of absences.”

Resigns in lieu of termination. On August 16, the CM director and HR director met with the employee and advised her that it was in her best interest to resign, because if she was terminated, she would not be able to preserve her rehire eligibility. At the end of the meeting, she wrote and signed her letter of resignation. She subsequently filed an EEOC charge alleging she was constructively discharged due to her disability, and this lawsuit followed.

Disability under ADA. The court rejected the employer’s contention that the employee could not show that she was disabled under the ADA, noting that the record showed that she was diagnosed with “acute low back pain with sciatica” after feeling a shooting pain in her back and right leg. She also reported being “stuck” during the episode and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Applying the ADAAA’s liberal standard and construing the facts in the light most favorable to her, the court found that “her back pain with sciatica constitutes an episodic impairment that substantially limits a major life activity,” and therefore she was an individual with a disability under the ADA.

Qualified individual. The employer did not argue that she was not a qualified individual, and there is no evidence that she could not perform the essential functions of her position. Therefore, the court turned to the issue of causation.

Constructive discharge? The employee alleged that her resignation constituted a constructive discharge because she was given a choice between termination and resignation at a meeting during which her back pain and work deficiencies were discussed. While the court found it questionable that she was constructively discharged, her claim failed nevertheless since she could not establish that her disability was the but-for cause of any such constructive discharge.

Decisionmakers unaware of disability. Significantly, she failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the CM director or the HR director—the relevant decisionmakers—had actual knowledge of her disability. Rather, she only communicated with her supervisor about her disability when she texted her about the July 24 back pain incident and communicated with her regarding her first doctor’s note. There was also no evidence suggesting that her supervisor discussed her texts or doctor’s note regarding her back pain with the CM director, and she admittedly did not communicate with HR or anyone else about her back pain and never supplied the employer with any medical records related to her disability. Finally, the record did not suggest that her supervisor was involved in the termination decision, copied on emails in which the CM director and the HR director contemplated her separation from employment, or attended the August 16 meeting.

No causal connection. The record also showed that the decisionmakers were already contemplating firing the employee because of her tardiness, substantive mistakes including HIPAA violations, and interpersonal issues with a coworker. Thus, even if her absences related to her back pain were a reason for her termination, they were not the but-for cause of her termination. As such, she failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination.

Mosaic analysis. She also failed to present a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” from which discrimination could be inferred. Significantly, she failed to point to any similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably, nor did she present any evidence suggesting suspicious timing or pretext. Rather, the record showed that while she was still in her probationary period, she was habitually tardy, made substantive errors, and had conflict with her coworkers. “While she also experienced debilitating back pain during this same period, there is not enough circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to determine that [she] was fired or asked to resign because of her disability.”

The case is No. 1:24-CV-61 (LAG).

Judge: Gardner, L.

Attorneys: Jermaine Anthony Walker (HKM Employment Attorneys) for Cassander Rollins. Alfreda Sheppard (Watson Spence) for Phoebe Putney Health System Inc.

Companies: Phoebe Putney Health System Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge GeorgiaNews